The devil, is as always, in the details.

Well, well, well. As the ACA slowly grinds to life, it is turning out that more and more major problems are being revealed. Never mind that the ACA gives the insurance industry a mandated monopoly, with regulations that are few and weak.

Now we're seeing all sorts of nasty little secrets come oozing out. Last week was the revelation that smokers could be paying thousands of dollars more in premiums. This week, we find out that there will be no federal financial assistance for those who can't afford family coverage offered by employers.

"The Obama administration adopted a strict definition of affordable health insurance on Wednesday that will deny federal financial assistance to millions of Americans with modest incomes who cannot afford family coverage offered by employers.

In deciding whether an employer’s health plan is affordable, the Internal Revenue Service said it would look at the cost of coverage only for an individual employee, not for a family. Family coverage might be prohibitively expensive, but federal subsidies would not be available to help buy insurance for children in the family.

17. My focus is on the least amongst us.

I fought my ass off against Clinton's welfare reform. And, as predicted, the poorest just got poorer. IT KILLS ME EACH AND EVERY MOMENT OF EVERY DAY HOW WE THREW SO MANY PEOPLE INTO HUNGER AND POVERTY. Welfare reform was a Republican plan and increased poverty.

The AHCA is a republican plan and WILL increase health care insecurity for those who need it most.

As for your 30,000,000+ number? I saw similar imaginary stats during the welfare reform debate. I did not believe Clinton's numbers and I don't believe Obama's numbers. Why? Because BOTH ARE BASED ON A REPUBLICAN PLAN.

47. The least among us won't be affected.

ETA: The least among us will be qualified for Medicaid expansion. And if you live in a state without an enlightened governor willing to expand medicaid and you would otherwise qualify for the expanded Medicaid, you will not be subject to the fines if you don't get coverage.

28. That's a bogus figure

The reality is that "access" to coverage is always going to be any number you care to name.

Ultimately, all the spin in the world doesn't change the reality of what the ACA is. At best it will convince some for a time, but in the end reality always wins out. And the reality here is that this is and always has been one of the most diabolical pieces of legislation rammed down our throats in a half century of decline.

Under the ACA the American people, every single person in this country, will be forced by LAW to purchase insurance from these companies or they will suffer whatever legal repurcussions necessary to force compliance.

It doesn't matter if people want it or not, they have to buy it
It doesn't matter how high to co-pay goes, they have to buy it
It doesn't matter how expensive it gets, they have to buy it
It doesn't matter how poor the service becomes, they have to buy it
It doesn't matter how little is actually covered, they have to buy it
There are no real restrictions on price increases, they can and will do whatever they like
There are no real guarantees of service any more than there are today
There are no guarantees that the essentially non-existance penalties today will not be prison tomorrow
There is no guarantee that the insurance you have "access" to will be affordable
There are no guarantess of anything at all, except one very important thing...

The insurance companies are now guaranteed your business at any price they choose to name.

Nothing like this has ever been law in our nation's history. It makes Citizen's United look positively progressive.

19. Suspect? Oooo...

I stick to policy which hasn't changed from Carter through Obama. My focus is poverty and peace. Through my voting life time, poverty has increased and war is perpetual and because of Bush and Obama, I've added surveillance.

30. Address the issue,

not the messenger. If the poster bothers you so much, put him/her on ignore. Problem solved and you won't be boring the shit out of the rest of us with your incessant bitching about this particular poster.

32. The alternative is that I don't have to pay

for coverage I'm not going to get with money I don't have. It's the whole mandate thing that is intrinsically the problem. It's a Republican plan designed to divert from single-payer and was confirmed by a Republican Chief Justice.

60. No, the current state

is I don't have insurance because I don't have money to buy it. Next year, I get to pay a penalty for not having the money to purchase the MANDATED insurance OR I pay for some lousy insurance that I won't be able to use due to high deductibles with money I don't have.

22. It's a Heritage Foundation idea. A republican law.

Of course it sucks. I don't see how this is a step toward single payer when it is a wholly corporate capitalist's dream.

All I see are people having their hours cut so companies don't have to cover people and things like this in the OP and the obscene smoker's charge that came out last week.

I'm starting to wonder if there wasn't something to all the bellyaching by the right on this besides political gain. It's their law after all, they would know what's in it.

All we had to say was "Medicare for all". The people love Medicare across the political spectrum and it's simple to understand. It would have sold. It just wouldn't sell to our elected sellouts. Which is why they made it as messy and convoluted as possible.

29. +1000

Also, there is absolutely no reason for there to be any link between healthcare and a person's employer. You'd think they could at least have gotten that fixed, most businesses would LOVE to be free from contributing towards their employees' health insurance. - edited to add: and most workers would be thrilled, in this age of job insecurity, for their health insurance to have nothing to do with their employer.

31. Agreed.

Chaining a person to a job simply to keep the benefits is another way they screw you. Give workers mobility and choices and salaries will increase and real competition can occur. Two more things they absolutely do not want.

54. Sorry, but

I don't believe for a minute that you are the least bit interested in discussing any issues at all. Your purpose is transparent - post something anti-Obama, then sit back and wait for the replies and recs.

And if one anti-Obama OP doesn't gain any traction, you simply post another on a different topic and hope for better mileage.

We get it - you can't stand Obama. There's really no need to keep repeating yourself.

55. Again, this is your wishful thinking,

I have been very clear about the issues I care about, no matter whether the person in the White House has a D or R behind their name. I care deeply about single payer UHC, have cared a great deal since the late seventies. Yes, I find the ACA to be an abomination, even back when it was Romneycare, or HeritageFoundationcare, even back when it was Nixoncare. It simply isn't a good replacement or alternative to single payer UHC.

Thus, now that it is the law of the land, yes, I will be critical of it. As you see, it is turning out to be an even worse deal than we thought.

So, I'm more than willing to discuss and/or debate this issue with you. However, it is also quite obvious that your loyalty to the president is blinding you to his many faults. If that is how you want to go through life, that is your choice. Just don't expect that everybody will make the same choice.

Don't like somebody who is consistently anti-war, pro-civil liberties, all around liberal in general, touch, get used to it.

So either discuss the issue at hand, or admit that you're ducking out on it.

56. ...

"However, it is also quite obvious that your loyalty to the president is blinding you to his many faults."

I said nothing about loyalty to Obama, nor disloyalty, nor (D) nor (R). That's not the point. The point is that you can't stand the man, and for some reason find it necessary to reiterate that constantly.

I would find it equally tiresome if you posted OPs about Sarah Palin, or Limbaugh, or any other person you don't like - over, and over, and over again.

Funny how you pretend to want to discuss 'issues', when the only ones you post about are those you can tie to Obama in some negative way. I find that incredibly boring, and don't wish to try and 'discuss' anything with someone who keeps harping on the same thing incessantly.

62. and there you have it.

33. Millions of Americans...

will be forced to buy a product from predatory providers with practically no regulations on said predator. What could possibly go wrong? We wanted public option, so we started debates there instead of at universal health care. We shouldn't be surprised we didn't get what we wanted.

44. The ACA is another boondoggle that we must now eliminate by taking

Politicians who have been compromised by wealthy private interests, and wealthy private interests themselves, will never allow us to institute a fair and humane healthcare system through the political system.

People really need to stop bullshitting themselves about this, it's so embarrassing in its naivete. If we want a reasonable healthcare system, we're going to have to take it and make it for ourselves from outside the system. End of story.

65. This is not the final rule, and

Still, the NY Times article and other reports appear to be making incomplete assumptions

In 2012, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, total premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance averaged $5,615 a year for single coverage and $15,745 for family coverage. The employee’s share of the premium averaged $951 for individual coverage and more than four times as much, $4,316, for family coverage.

Under the I.R.S. rule, such costs would be considered affordable for a family making $35,000 a year, even though the family would have to spend 12 percent of its income for full coverage under the employer’s plan.

Is this a single-income family? If this is based on two incomes, what would prevent either parent from covering both kids (assuming neither parent earns more than $26,000)?

The Medicaid subsidies are up to 400 percent of FPL (about $90,000 for a family of four), and a family of three qualifies for full Medicaid up to $26,344.

A key element of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the expansion of Medicaid to nearly all individuals with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) ($15,415 for an individual; $26,344 for a family of three in 2012) in 2014. Medicaid currently provides health coverage for over 60 million individuals, including 1 in 4 children, but low parent eligibility levels and restrictions in eligibility for other adults mean that many low income individuals remain uninsured. The ACA expands coverage by setting a national Medicaid eligibility floor for nearly all groups. By 2016, Medicaid, along with the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), will cover an additional 17 million individuals, mostly low-income adults, leading to a significant reduction in the number of uninsured people.

Every state operates a CHIP, although most states have unique names for their programs like Child Health Plus (New York), Healthy Families (California), and Hoosier Healthwise (Indiana). In several states, CHIP and Medicaid are combined into one program.

Here are some CHIP basics:

Basic eligibility for CHIP: Children up to age 19 in families with incomes up to $45,000 per year (for a family of four) are likely to be eligible for coverage. In many states, children in families with higher incomes can also qualify.

Eligibility and pregnancy: Pregnant women may be eligible for CHIP. Coverage for expectant mothers generally includes lab testing and labor and delivery costs, and at least 60 days of care after delivery.

Citizenship and immigration status: CHIP covers U.S. citizens and certain legal immigrants. States have the option of covering children and pregnant women who are lawfully residing in the United States. Undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible for CHIP.